How to read a paper : getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)

BMJ 1997;315:243-246 (26 July)

Education and debate

How to read a paper : getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)

Trisha Greenhalgh, senior lecturer ^a

^a Unit for Evidence-Based Practice and Policy, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London Medical School/Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Whittington Hospital, London N19 5NF p.greenhalgh@ucl.ac.uk

The science of "trashing" papers

It usually comes as a surprise to students to learn that some(perhaps most) published articles belong in the bin, and shouldcertainly not be used to inform practice.¹ The first box showssome common reasons why papers are rejected by peer reviewedjournals.

Why were papers rejected for publication?

The study did not address an important scientific issue
The study was not original (someone else had already done the same or a similar study)
The study did not actually test the authors' hypothesis
A different type of study should have been done
Practical difficulties (in recruiting subjects, for example) led the authors to compromise on the original study protocol
The sample size was too small
The study was uncontrolled or inadequately controlled
The statistical analysis was incorrect or inappropriate
The authors drew unjustified conclusions from their data
There is a significant conflict of interest (one of the authors, or a sponsor, . . . [Full text of this article]

Critical appraisal
Question 1: Why was the study done, and what clinical question were the authors addressing?
Summary points

Question 2: What type of study was done?
Question 3: Was this design appropriate to the research?

  Randomised controlled trials

  Cohort studies

  Case-control studies

  Cross sectional surveys

  Case reports

  The hierarchy of evidence

  References

Add to CiteULike CiteULike    Add to Complore Complore    Add to Connotea Connotea    Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    Add to Digg Digg    Add to Reddit Reddit    Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: systematic review: Kristen Underhill, Paul Montgomery, and Don Operario
BMJ 2007 335: 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Hammond, R., Harry, T. C (2008). Efficacy of antiretroviral therapy in Africa: effect on immunological and virological outcome measures - a meta-analysis. Int J STD AIDS 19: 291-296 [Abstract] [Full text]
Underhill, K., Montgomery, P., Operario, D. (2007). Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: systematic review. BMJ 335: 248-248 [Abstract] [Full text]
Holosko, M. J. (2006). A Suggested Authors' Checklist for Submitting Manuscripts to Research on Social Work Practice. Research on Social Work Practice 16: 449-454 [Abstract]
Glenny, A-M., Harrison, J. E. (2003). How to ... interpret the orthodontic literature. J. Orthod. 30: 159-164 [Full text]
Galli, M., Luciani, D., Bertolini, G., Barbui, T. (2003). Lupus anticoagulants are stronger risk factors for thrombosis than anticardiolipin antibodies in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review of the literature. Blood 101: 1827-1832 [Abstract] [Full text]
Gonzalez, L. S III (2003). Referees make journal clubs fun. BMJ 326: 106-106 [Full text]
Donner-Banzhoff, N., Kunz, R., Rosser, W. (2001). Studies of symptoms in primary care. Fam Pract 18: 33-38 [Abstract] [Full text]
Lotze, T. E., Paolicchi, J. (2000). Vertebral Artery Dissection and Migraine Headaches in Children. J Child Neurol 15: 694-696 [Abstract]
Bruinsma, F., Venn, A., Lancaster, P., Speirs, A., Healy, D. (2000). Incidence of cancer in children born after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 15: 604-607 [Abstract] [Full text]
Greenhalgh, T., Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ 315: 740-743 [Full text]